State department admits- terror is on the rise

J

jethrek

,
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
Whoops, sorry to miss your thread Bobak.

I'm starting to wonder if this administration can tell the truth abotu anything tho.
 
S

SSS

neo retired
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Posts
10,771
[galfordo]Naah uhh, Bush said terror was dropping. The Kerry campaign cooked up such a story, paid the media to make it sound like Bush was lying. Bush in 2004. Bush! Bush! Bush! The most honest president since Nixon[/galfordo]
 
galfordo

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
SamuraiShodownSensei said:
[galfordo]Naah uhh, Bush said terror was dropping. The Kerry campaign cooked up such a story, paid the media to make it sound like Bush was lying. Bush in 2004. Bush! Bush! Bush! The most honest president since Nixon[/galfordo]
Click to expand...

My, aren't you feeling creative today? :rolleyes: .... I guess coming up with thoughts of your own is too much work.

Anyway .....

The only problem I have with this whole thing is that there are key numbers missing. There's been a mistake .... great. How bad was it? What are the real figures? I know people love to jump onto ideas when they realize that their being true will prove a certain point, but the numbers really are important here.
 
son_of_bael

son_of_bael

Host for Orochi
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Posts
759
This report just proves that you can prove anything with statistics. What constitutes a "terrorist" attack? Does the scale/location of each attack have any bearing?

So the US state department said that 2003 had the lowest amount of attacks since 1969, huh? I don't think many people cared how many terrorist attacks there were worldwide, at least people in the US, until 9-11. So everyone starts freaking about about terrorism which pushes it the the top of the political agenda, and so the US state department declares that 2003 had the lowest number of attacks since 1969, as there were only 190 attacks ("good news" apparently :spock: ). I'd also like it if someone could even name 20 of the 190 attacks.
 
J

jethrek

,
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
[galfordo]Mistaking a "rise in terrorism in 2003" for a "drop in terrorism in 2003" doesn't mean anytihng. THey have no numbers. Me? Have numbers? I don't ened them! After all, what matters is that terrorism probably only got slightly worse as we invaded IRaq. And if it did get a lot worse, it was just a fluke. Really.[/galfordo]

Really? Read this, dumbfuck:

The State Department reported in April that there were fewer terror attacks in 2003 than in any year since 1969.
Click to expand...

Maybe having an IQ beneath 90 allows you to construe that as a "little off" when the State Dept. is now admitting terrorism rose in 2003.

The state dept. failed to admit how far it was off.

All that's meaningful about this is that the administration and its supporters used this report as "evidence" that terrorism was falling thanks to their efforts. That...was a lie.
 
galfordo

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
jethrek said:
[galfordo]Mistaking a "rise in terrorism in 2003" for a "drop in terrorism in 2003" doesn't mean anytihng. THey have no numbers. Me? Have numbers? I don't ened them! After all, what matters is that terrorism probably only got slightly worse as we invaded IRaq. And if it did get a lot worse, it was just a fluke. Really.[/galfordo]

Really? Read this, dumbfuck:



Maybe having an IQ beneath 90 allows you to construe that as a "little off" when the State Dept. is now admitting terrorism rose in 2003.

The state dept. failed to admit how far it was off.

All that's meaningful about this is that the administration and its supporters used this report as "evidence" that terrorism was falling thanks to their efforts. That...was a lie.
Click to expand...

Spewing insults doesn't make your argument look any stronger, jethrek. It just makes you look like a mental infant.
 
J

jethrek

,
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
[galfordo]
I have no argument nor response to what you've said, but you were mean to me. waaah.
[/galfordo]
 
galfordo

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
jethrek said:
[galfordo]
I have no argument nor response to what you've said, but you were mean to me. waaah.
[/galfordo]
Click to expand...

If you can come up with an intelligent argument that doesn't involve your throwing around insults to mask the weaknesses in your logic, then I'll be happy to debate with you.
 
galfordo

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Can someone call the humane society to put this one out of its misery?
 
Loopz

Loopz

Formerly Punjab,
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Posts
12,871
+1.

I like spinach and sandwiches.

Hell, even Colin Powell admitted today that they fucked up. The amazing thing about this, though, is how many 'ground-level' folks in government and in the media saw this report and said 'WTF!'. It was so easy to see that these numbers were wrong that it has to be asked...

Was this kind of thing being cooked up to just preach to the converted?
Is the Bush team so worried about getting even their rank-and-file to the polls now? Because if this was a cooked-up politcal PR stunt, it was a really awful one everyone could see through. The non-stop stream of lies from these folks is breathtaking. Of course, you'd resort to this sort of thing to if you had NO successes to run on whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top